Foreword
Overview of State Policy Initiatives Since 1997/98
Methodology
Appendix:
A Summary of State Policy Initiatives in Higher Education Since 1997/98
About the Author
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

his paper presents observations on a nationwide review of recent state education policy initiatives. The intent of the review is to identify initiatives that have been implemented since most of the data for the National Center’s report card, Measuring Up 2000, were collected—roughly academic year 1997/98. While an effort was made to examine state policy initiatives broadly, particular attention was given to those that could be reasonably related to or have a significant future impact on the major performance categories of preparation, participation, affordability, completion and benefits.

Several assumptions or perspectives are reflected in the review:

•    The review emphasized higher education but purposely examined the full scope of state education initiatives from early childhood through adult education and literacy. Attention to K–12 initiatives stressed those that focus on preparation for higher education and narrowing gaps in access created by problems at the K–12 level.

•    The review did not focus on trends in levels of state funding for higher education. Clearly, this is an important dimension of what has been happening in the states since 1997/98, but not all changes related to the level of state funding. While some of the changes can be attributed to strong economic conditions, others in states such as North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia took place in difficult state fiscal environments.

 

Overall observations

A number of states have undertaken significant new policy initiatives since 1997/98 that will not show up in Measuring Up 2000 but could clearly affect future performance. Several other points stand out:

•    A subtle shift is taking place in a small subset of states from a focus primarily on institutions to a broader focus on the state’s population. This change is reflected in deliberate, integrated strategies to raise the education attainment of the state’s population (both youth and adults) and the state’s overall economic competitiveness. At the highest levels of leadership, these states have established clear, measurable goals for long-term change, and the whole system (not just K–12 or higher education) is engaged in making measurable progress toward these goals. In a majority of states, however, higher education policy remains focused on internal concerns and institutional priorities.

•    There is a clear distinction between states that initiated education reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s and have sustained those reforms, and those states that did not. Even in states with long-standing reforms (e.g., Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland), significant changes in policy in the past three to five years could affect performance. In other states, the recently adopted reforms—especially in K–12—are so new and so clearly hastily copied from other states that it would be difficult to project how they will actually be implemented and whether they can be sustained long enough to have a fundamental impact.

•    It is difficult—if not misleading—to focus on individual policy initiatives without a sense of their relationship (or lack of relationship) to other initiatives. To do so can reinforce political fragmentation and lack of alignment and integration. At all levels, but especially at the K–12 level, states are increasingly attempting to establish integrated, systematic reforms in which key elements (e.g., standards, assessment, accountability for schools and teachers, teacher quality, financing, leadership development) are aligned. At the higher education level, there is a clear pattern in a limited subset of states to link key policy elements (public policy priorities, student and institutional financing, accountability, and major technology and economic development initiatives). In the majority of states, however, higher education policy elements remain largely unaligned with a long-term strategy to improve education opportunity and attainment in the state.

State policy initiatives were grouped in ten broad categories. The appendix of this overview presents a summary of initiatives by state and category. The following is a description of the meaning of each category and examples of the major initiatives.

 

1. Major reform initiatives, all education levels (K–16)

 

Included in this category are state initiatives that reflect deliberate design at the highest level of state government (often through state legislation) to link K–12 and higher education reform. This category is distinguished from K–16 initiatives (category 2) by the level and pervasiveness of the K–16 emphasis—the emphasis is not subordinated to the priorities in either K–12 or higher education.

Three states (Florida, Georgia and North Carolina) have implemented—or are still in the process of implementing—changes instituted since 1997/98 that broaden and deepen the K–16 emphasis already existing in those states. To varying degrees, the changes include establishing a state-level leadership/accountability structure for all levels of education, and major initiatives in most of the other categories of policy initiative identified in this review (e.g., K–16, higher education, K–12, teacher quality, student and institutional financing, new delivery modes, and economic development).

As suggested earlier, it is difficult in these states to focus only on specific initiatives (e.g., HOPE Scholarships in Georgia), because each initiative fits within a broader policy framework and strategy. This integration is most evident in Georgia and North Carolina. The recent changes in Florida were designed to achieve greater coordination.

•    Recent changes in Florida—which tend to be separate initiatives—include:

•    Major governance change creating a new state board of education effective January 2003.

•    Talented 20 initiative as an alternative to affirmative action whereby students in the top 20 percent of their graduating classes are to be guaranteed admission. Also, the need for alternatives in a “post-Hopwood” environment is driving more attention to early intervention and preparation for college.

•    The A+ education reform plan.

•    Florida Bright Futures, modeled after Georgia HOPE scholarships, initiated in 1997.

•    Initiatives on new modes of delivery, technology and economic development.

•    Recent changes in Georgia that extend and institutionalize the reforms initiative over the past decade include:

•    The recently enacted (2000) education reforms establishing a new Education Coordinating Council and Office of Education Accountability providing a coordinating mechanism chaired by the governor, and drawing together all the state’s education agencies and boards.

•    The P–16 Council and related initiatives of the University System of Georgia, Department of Education, Department of Technical and Adult Education, and other entities.

•    A wide range of policy initiatives of the University System of Georgia framed by guiding principles adopted by the Board of Regents in 1994.

•    Refinement of the HOPE Scholarship program and PROMISE scholarships related to teaching, including removal of the “Pell grant offset” in HOPE.

•    Major changes in the budget and resource allocation policies to link financing with state and university system priorities.

•    New modes of delivery and extensive initiatives related to technology.

•    Major new initiatives on economic development, including the Intellectual Capital Partnership Program (ICAPP).

 

•    As in Georgia, the recent changes in North Carolina build upon and extend previous initiatives—some pursued for several decades—to improve education at all levels in the state. These include:

•    The goal of making North Carolina’s public schools First in America by the year 2010, led by the Education Cabinet including the leaders of all the state’s major education entities.

•    The University of North Carolina’s University-School Partnerships, a statewide strategy engaging the University in improving public education (improving teacher quality, school leadership, etc.).

•    Strategic priorities of the University emphasizing the university/school partnerships as well as initiatives on access, technology and partnerships for economic development.

•    A new strategic plan for the community college system emphasizing workforce development and leveraging the power of technology.

•    Significant changes in University of North Carolina (UNC) student financing policies, including a significant increase in tuition (a change from the historic commitment to low tuition) and the establishment of a new need-based student aid program for UNC students.

•    Major initiatives to extend information technology throughout the university and education system and to use technology for new modes of delivery and to improve teaching and learning.

 

2. K–16 initiatives at the state/system level

 

Beyond Florida, Georgia and North Carolina, the concept of P–16 or K–16 clearly is moving from concept to strategy and implementation in several states, and these changes have gained momentum since 1997/98. States that stand out in this category include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Utah. These states share certain characteristics:

•    A coordinating mechanism has been established at the state level to engage both political and education leaders from all sectors in a coordinated, long-term strategy to improve education in the state. These “mechanisms” tend not to be new governance or administrative structures but are means to ensure coordination among highly diverse, separately governed entities.

•    Efforts are being made to align key elements of reform across K–12 and higher education (e.g., standards, assessment, school accountability, teacher quality, financing, targeting of resources and support on high-need schools and populations). As emphasized by Michael Kirst, however, a serious gap remains between content and assessment standards between secondary education and higher education, and only a few state’s K–16 initiatives are seriously narrowing this gap.[1]

•    New initiatives combining the federal GEAR UP program, modified versions of the Georgia HOPE Scholarship program with more emphasis on targeting low-income students, and targeted efforts to strengthen preparation for college, especially in mathematics, reading and core subjects.

•    A noticeable shift away from a focus on institutions (providers) toward an emphasis on raising the education attainment of the population. Oklahoma’s new “Brain Gain” initiative is an example of this change.

•    As in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina, the states in category 2 tend to have put in place multiple initiatives across all the categories in this review. There is a trend toward linking separate initiatives in an overall strategy, but this is more evident in some states than in others.

•    In the case of Texas—as in Florida—the renewed attention to links with K–12 and a focus on preparation for college clearly is related to the need for alternatives in a “post-Hopwood” environment.

 

3. Major initiatives, primarily higher education

 

Each of the states mentioned in categories 1 and 2 also have undertaken major reforms specifically in higher education in the period since 1997/98. In addition, several other states recently have made changes—or are in the process of considering changes—which could affect future performance. Examples include:

•    North Dakota: The recently approved North Dakota Roundtable report on the University System for the 21^st Century, parts of which will require legislative action.

•    West Virginia: The recently approved higher education reform legislation establishing a Compact for the Future of West Virginia, creating a new financing system and a new Higher Education Policy Commission.

 

4. Major P–12 initiatives

 

Because this review is focused primarily on higher education, P–16 or K–12 reform initiatives were identified primarily to provide a context—especially in terms of the growing emphasis on K–16 reform. Because others are following these developments (e.g., Education Week, Quality Counts, and Achieve, Inc.), only brief summaries of major changes are included, and not all states’ initiatives are noted.

The 1997/98 period has witnessed a new phase of K–12 reform that has direct relevance to the whole issue of preparation for college—and the related issue of accessibility for all students. In this period all but a few states have either established new K–12 reform agendas or enacted new agendas reflecting a common set of themes most clearly enunciated in the 1999 National Education Summit.

There is growing evidence that states that instituted similar reforms in the early periods (1985 to 1989), and sustained attention to these reforms, now are showing measurable improvements in NAEP results. The message is increasingly clear that sustained attention to an agenda emphasizing clear, measurable goals and benchmarks, standards, assessments aligned to standards, and consequences for students and schools, pays off in terms of improved performance over time.

As suggested earlier, many of the state K–12 reforms are so new (enacted in 1999/2000) that it would be difficult to project how they will be implemented and whether they will be sustained. Many of the new assessment policies are being phased in over the next three to five years. Several states have established new high school exit exams (exams that students must pass in order to receive a high school diploma) but in most cases these are just now affecting graduating students.

If these K–12 reforms have the intended impact on student achievement, they could have a significant impact on future state performance as measured by Measuring Up 2000.

 

5. Teacher quality initiatives

 

Teacher quality is a major issue in most states. As in the case of other K–12 related reforms, this review does not address them in detail because others (e.g., Education Week, Quality Counts 2000) are following these developments. Nevertheless, these initiatives—many of which are new—could significantly affect state higher education performance in the future. Improved teacher quality should ultimately improve state performance on preparation for college. However, the current teacher quality initiatives also are placing strong emphasis on improving the education of teachers and on measuring what teachers know and can do prior to entering practice. The results of these assessments provide a means also for assessing the outcomes of undergraduate education at the colleges and universities from which the teachers graduated.

 

6. Major community college initiatives

 

Several states have enacted major reforms in the period since 1997/98 aimed at strengthening community colleges, technical education, and workforce development. These reforms could affect future state performance on access, affordability and other measures. The most prominent of these reforms are:

•    Indiana. The statewide community college initiative involving Vincennes University and Ivy Tech.

•    Kansas. The 1999 legislation assigning responsibility for coordination of the state’s community colleges and postsecondary vocational schools to the Board of Regents.

•    Kentucky. The Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS), established by HB 1 in 1997.

•    Louisiana. The Louisiana Community and Technical College System, established in 1998.

•    Maine. The Community College Partnership of Maine between the University of Maine System and the Maine Technical Colleges established in 2000 to ensure access to associate degree programs and technical college campuses.

•    Missouri. The Postsecondary Technical Education statewide plan strengthening the role and mission of community colleges and other institutions providing access to postsecondary technical education in every region of the state.

•    West Virginia. The new reform legislation (2000) calling for independently accredited community colleges in every region at the end of a six-year Compact for the Future of West Virginia.

 

7. Major policy changes in student financing

 

Included in this category are state initiatives focused on increasing affordability, including changes in both tuition policy (e.g., capping or reducing tuition) and new student aid policies. As indicated earlier, this review did not examine major changes in the levels of state funding for student assistance—although certainly these changes will directly affect access and affordability and future state performance on Measuring Up 2000. This review focused on substantive changes in state policies. Several developments are reflected in the detailed summary:

•    In the period since 1997/98, programs modeled after the Georgia HOPE Scholarship program have been the most popular student aid initiative in states across the nation. The most significant trend, however, has been to target the scholarships on lower-income students. The most dramatic change in this respect is the recent (August 2000) agreement between California Governor Gray Davis and the Legislature to increase state spending on need-based student aid by $97 million—enough to support a 41 percent increase in the number of grants awarded in the 2000-01 academic year. In addition, the agreement provides for nearly doubling spending on the state’s need-based aid program, to $1.2 billion, by 2006. Under the agreement, the awards would be guaranteed to every student who qualified, rather than being based on how much money was available in the budget.

Senate Bill 1644 revamps California’s current statewide financial aid program, the Cal Grant Program, creating an entitlement program guaranteeing a grant or scholarship award to future California high school graduates who demonstrate financial need and earn at least a C grade point average in their high school course work. Beginning in 2001, high school graduates with financial need and at least a B average would be eligible for a full-tuition grant at a state institution, or up to $9,700 at a private college in the state. Needy students who have at least a C average would be eligible for up to $1,550 to cover living expenses. In addition, the legislation provides grants for older students who are returning to college or enrolling for the first time.

Senate Bill 1688 provides financial awards of up to $5,500 for college costs to those high school students who are the highest scorers on the state’s standardized STAR examinations and on Advanced Placement examinations in mathematics and science. The program would provide $1,000 scholarships to students with high scores on a statewide standardized test (STAR), and $2,500 grants to students with high scores on Advanced Placement tests in math and science.

•    California was not the first state, however, to increase the emphasis on need in the design of new scholarship programs. Georgia’s elimination of the “Pell-offset” in 2000 reflects this trend. The new programs in states such as Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington all have provisions to target funding and establish income limits for eligibility.

•    Several states are developing new integrated student assistance and service strategies linking student aid programs (including the new HOPE-like scholarship programs), improving preparation for college for target schools and populations, and strengthening information and counseling services. The federal GEAR UP program is a major catalyst for several of these initiatives. Indiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Washington are examples of these developments.

•    Capping (if not reducing) public tuition, or curbing the rate of increase. Connecticut capped tuition for two fiscal years but in 2000 the state had to abandon that policy because of restrictions in state funding imposed by the state Constitution. Nevertheless, the state enacted a major increase in funding of state need-based student financial assistance, and the institutions agreed to restrain the rate of tuition increases.

•    Incentives for accelerated postsecondary education completion. Utah established a unique variation of the HOPE Scholarship idea in the New Century Scholars program. Students who complete an associate degree prior to or shortly after completing high school will receive free tuition. The aim of the program is to provide incentives for students to accelerate their progress toward a higher education degree and thereby increase the capacity of the state to accommodate the projected massive increase in student demand over the next decade.

•    Major changes in tuition and student aid policy. The clearest example of such a change is in North Carolina. After extensive study and debate, the University of North Carolina adopted a new tuition policy increasing tuition at some campuses and establishing lower rates at others. On the recommendation of the university, the Legislature in 2000 established a new need-based student aid program for UNC students.

 

8. Major changes in institutional financing

 

Included in this category are state initiatives to reform the bases for allocating state funding to institutions, especially changes that link financing to public priorities. Joseph Burke has recently completed a review of performance funding and budgeting,[2] so this review did not attempt to examine that issue in depth. This review, however, found a continuing interest in “performance” as an element of institutional financing policy—but not as an initiative isolated from broader financing strategy. The more common pattern is of policy changes that link the budget to state strategic priorities (“performance budgeting,” in Burke’s terminology). In most cases, these changes are being accompanied by fundamental changes in the overall budgeting and resource allocation policies. Examples of states making such changes in the period since 1997/98 (or shortly before) include:

• Georgia

• Kentucky

• Illinois

• North Dakota

• Oklahoma

• South Dakota

• West Virginia

Missouri, which has had the Funding for Results policy in place since the early 1990s, is continuing to refine this program to strengthen the link with state strategic priorities.

 

9. New delivery systems, technology and distance learning initiatives

 

The emphasis of this category is on state initiatives designed to increase access to regions, place-bound adults or other under-served populations through the use of new modes of delivery, open/distance learning and/or information technology. Four kinds of state initiative should be highlighted:

•    The Kentucky Commonwealth Virtual University is an entity that provides access to, and brokers the offerings of, public institutions in Kentucky. It is also a means of ensuring that people in Kentucky have access to courseware and programs from other providers, and for certifying learning and granting its own degrees.

•    State consortia designed to provide learners throughout a state with access to the programs and courseware of the state’s institutions, and also to provide a wide range of information and support services for learners. Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, South Dakota and Utah are examples of these initiatives.

•    Learning centers designed to provide communities or regions of a state with access to higher education services from multiple providers without establishing a new freestanding institution. In some cases, the providers are primarily the state’s public institutions. In other cases, the centers are being designed deliberately as “open-provider” centers with the base infrastructure (student services, technology and capacity to identify and broker needs of clients in the region) to draw on multiple public and private, in-state and out-of-state providers. Oklahoma is an example of a statewide policy framework for developing learning centers. Developing centers also has been a major issue in California, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oregon, among other states.

•    Developing state policies (primarily financing and quality assurance) to provide incentives for institutions to deliver programs on other institutions’ campuses (e.g., delivery of baccalaureate and graduate programs on community college campuses), or for institutions to serve as delivery sites for multiple providers. Florida and Oklahoma provide examples of these initiatives.

 

10. Other major higher education policy initiatives

 

Included in this category are state initiatives related to economic development or other public purposes not reflected in the other nine categories.

 

Summary

 

The period since 1997/98 has seen significant changes in state policy that may be too recent to be reflected in Measuring Up 2000. This review suggests that many of the most important changes have not taken place in higher education policy, but in broader initiatives cutting across all levels of education. In several states, the initiatives that may impact future performance (e.g., on preparation for college) have occurred outside higher education—and in fact, no significant changes have taken place explicitly in higher education policy in the past three to five years.

Methodology

 

 

As indicated, this review sought to identify state initiatives roughly since 1997/98. Data were gathered from a variety of sources:

1)   The state-by-state files at the National Center compiled by Cerena Sweetland-Gil.

2)   Review of readily available compilations of state initiatives such as:

•    Education Week state profiles, Quality Counts, and state news reports.

•    The Chronicle of Higher Education, including the September 1, 2000 Almanac and reports on state issues.

•    State profiles on state implementation of the 1999 National Education Summit developed by Achieve, Inc.

•    State-by-state reports and policy monitoring documents of the regional compacts, especially WICHE (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education) and SREB. This included the SREB Education Benchmarks 2000 reports.

•    National reports on state financing, tuition policy and student aid (e.g., SHEEO NASSGP survey and Washington HECB tuition survey).

•    State-by-state policy initiative summaries prepared by SHEEO and ECS.

3)   Review of documents on state Web sites, including higher education and K–12 boards and agencies, governors’ offices and legislatures, as necessary.

4)   Review of other National Center reports providing a state-by-state perspective on policy initiatives.

5)     Interviews with state officials in approximately 25 states.

Appendix

A Summary of State Policy Initiatives in Education Since 1997/98